A TERRA-COTTA . 243

A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS.

[PL. LXI.J

THE position of in the history of Greek sculpture is peculiarly tantalizing. We seem to know a good deal about his work. We know his statue of a Doryphoros from the marble copy of it in Naples, and we know his Diadumenos from two marble copies in the . Yet with these and other sources of knowledge, it happens that when we desire to get closer to his real style and to define it there occurs a void. So to speak, a bridge is wanting at the end of an otherwise agreeable journey, and we welcome the best help that comes to hand. There is, I think, some such help to be obtained from the terra-cotta statuette recently acquired in Smyrna by Mr. W. R. Paton. But first it may be of use to recall the reasons why the marble statues just mentioned must fail to convey a perfectly true notion of originals which we are justified in assuming were of bronze. In each of these statues the artist has been compelled by the nature of the material to introduce a massive support in the shape of a tree stem. That is at once a new element in the design, and, as a distinguished French sculptor1 has rightly observed, this new element called for a modification of the entire figure. This would have been true of a marble copy made even

1 M. Eugene Guillaume, in Eayet's dell' Tnst. Arch, 1878, p. 5. He gives Monuments de VArt Antique, pt. 3, the de Janze bronze in pl. S, the pl. 1 (Doryphorus). The Vaison Dia- Farnese Diadumenus in pl. A, the dumenus is given by Rayet in pt. 4, Vaison Diadumenus in the Monumenti pl. 1, and the De Janze bronze statuette ddV Inst. Arch. x. pl. 49, and the in the Bibliotheque at Paris, in pt. 4, Doryphorus, ibid. pl. 50. pl. 2. Cf. Michaelis in the Annali 244 A TERRACOTTA DIADUMENOS. in the time of Polykleitos himself. But none of the marble copies of his works that we possess go nearly so far back. They are separated from him by centuries, during which some striking innovations were made. In particular a new canon of propor- tions for the human figure had been introduced by Lysippos, and this canon, which affected Polykleitos more than any other

THE VAISON DIADUMBNOS.

sculptor, had become the standard for subsequent art. The copyist of later days was thus in danger of incorporating the system of proportions in which he had been trained with the actual proportions of Polykleitos whom he was set to imitate. We see this clearly in the marble statue of a Diadumenos from Vaison, in the British Museum. The proportion of torso to A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS. 245 thigh is there the proportion introduced by Lysippos, while the shape of the head, the great breadth of the shoulders, and perhaps some other features are no less distinctly retained from Polykleitos. In such circumstances no two copyists could be expected to work alike, and accordingly in another marble statue of a Diadumenos, which the British Museum was fortu- nate in obtaining from the Farnese collection, we find much less of Lysippos. The length of the torso and the thigh is more equalized, and we seem to be getting back nearer to the actual proportions of the original in this respect; since it can hardly be doubted that in the canon of Polykleitos a long and massive torso was as conspicuous a feature as was the long thigh in the canon of Lysippos. But these two statues, though they retain much from the bronze original, are yet far from adequate to convey an exact notion of its proportions and style. We must still look for a copy executed under more favourable conditions. In some measure we have that in Mr. Paton's terra-cotta. The diminished scale would no doubt lead to error in some parts. But there are, here at least, no exigencies of material to call for modifications. In such details as the hollowing out of the pupils of the eyes, in the gilding of the diadem of which traces only now remain, and in the peculiar form of the nipple on the right breast, the artist has obviously followed a bronze original. It must have been from this motive also, I think, that he has worked over the whole surface with a fine ivory tool, so as to break, by an infinite series of scarcely perceptibletouches, the light which falls on the figure, and which otherwise would have a glossy effect on the clay. One of the charms of fine Greek bronzes is the subtle preparation of all surfaces for the effects of light. I need not sa}^ that this is also one of the charms of nature. We may conclude then that the sculptor of the terra- cotta was inspired by a work in bronze—not precisely inspired to imitate the actual surface of a bronze, but to produce by means of his own an effect which he had observed in a fine bronze. A few measurements will show that he was quite independent of Lysippos in the matter of proportions, and for this purpose I have compared the terra-cotta with the Vaison Diadumenos, adding also certain measurements of the Farnese statue to 246 A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS. confirm what has been said as to its being the nearer of the two to the original of Polykleitos :

TEERA-COTTA. VAISON. FAKNESE.

Crown of head to below 1 ll|"=-295m. 54" =1-373 m. knee-cap / Collarbones to top of pubes 4|"=-119m. 21" ='530m. 16j"=-428m.

Length of thigh as marked ) 4|"=-111 m. iu diagram ) 22|"=-568m. Elbow to elbow .... 71"= '200 m. 37" = -940 m.

In comparing the measurements of so small a figure as the terra-cotta with a statue rather over life-size, there is so much liability to error, that I would have hesitated but for the marked manner in which the terra-cotta inverts the proportions of Lysippos, and preserves those of Polykleitos. No error that I can have made will alter that fact, which indeed is apparent at the first glance. In the Vaison statue the massiveness of the shoulders and arms is a noticeable feature; in the terra-cotta it is even striking, so much so that it may be open to doubt whether there is not here some exaggeration. The neck is robust and very finely fashioned, forming a pleasant contrast to the too short neck of the Vaison figure. The head is practically of the same shape as in both the marble statues, and we may take it to represent the original so far. But the terra-cotta has this advantage that the nose is intact It is the same long and finely formed nose which we see in the head of Hera from Agrigentum,1 now generally accepted as one of the best, if not the best repre- sentation we possess of a female head by Polykleitos. The upper lip is rendered with much the same effect as in the Hera. Throughout the figure the modelling of bones and muscle is carried out with great refinement as well as with force. But the artist is not responsible for a small part under the ribs on the right side. That with some other parts which interfere less with the artistic effect is the work of the restorer.

1 Published by Helbig in Man. dell' last. Arch. is. pi. 1. A TERBA-COTTA DIADUMENOS. 247 In conclusion, I feel bound to approach the difficult question of the date of this terra-cotta. It is no doubt possible that it may have been made after the time of Lysippos by an artist who had the original before him, or perhaps rather some good copy, and who rigidly excluded from his view all his own special training, in such matters as proportion at least. But there is a small bronze in the Bibliotheque at Paris, representing this same subject, which again shows how difficult it was for an artist living after the time of Lysippos to get away from his influence. And thus, while unwilling to call such an escape impossible, I would still prefer to think that the terra-cotta has been executed previous to this over-mastering influence. But how far previous ? Between Polykleitos and Lysippos more than a century elapsed, during which period we may assume that the statues of athletes by the earlier of these two masters continued to attract the admiration of artists. If we must choose between the beginning and the end of this period, I would choose the end; for this reason, that the terra-cotta seems to me to have a decided mark of the intervening influence of . The manner in which the thighs are modelled recalls nothing so much as the of Olympia. In Callis- tratus,1 we have a description of a statue of a Diadumenos by Praxiteles, and if everything that Callistratus said was intelligible and true, we might suppose that Praxiteles also was among those who made a special study of the type of athlete by Polykleitos. So much at least seems certain, that the maker of the terra-cotta has engrafted on his model Dia- dumenos some of the manner of Praxiteles. For this among other reasons, we may perhaps be justified in assigning it to the short period between Praxiteles and Lysippos. To judge from the appearance of the clay, the figure must have been made in Asia Minor, and if in the neighbourhood of Smyrna, where I understand Mr. Paton acquired it, there would be no difficulty then in accounting for an acquaintance with the work of Polykleitos, since Ephesus possessed one of his most famous statues, the Amazon.

1 Stat. ii. A. S. MUERAT.